Papers

At University House, Birmingham, Monday to Wednesday, 6-8 January 1997

Dr Rex Mason (Oxford): H. Wheeler Robinson Revisited (Presidential Paper)

Dr Pauline Hodgetts, (Birmingham): In Search of the Judges: Of historica1 craft and crafted history (Short Paper)

Professor William Johnstone (Aberdeen): I Chronicles 21: What did David do wrong? (Short Paper)

Revd Richard J. Coggins (Lymington), Do we still need ‘Deutero-Isaiah?

Dr Gerard J. Norton (Birmingham): Biblia Hebraica Quinta: What, why, and for whom?

Dr John Day (Oxford): Yahweh and the sun

Professor R Norman Whybray (Ely): Psalm 119 – Profile of a Psalmist

Abstracts

Presidential Address: Dr Rex A. Mason (Oxford) ‘H. Wheeler Robinson Revisited’.

The paper re-examined H. Wheeler Robinson’s life and personality in the light of the most recent material available before turning to the major strands of his work. These were rooted in his graduate research work in the field of ‘Hebrew Psychology’, and the development of his thinking through his works was traced in the light of the sociological and anthropological works which inspired him and criticisms which have been made of his work since his death. It was argued that the most significant aspect of his work was not in the concept of ‘Corporate Personality’ (important as that was) but in the concept of the ‘invasion’ of human psyche by the divine Spirit, a concept which also originated in animism but which was developed to much greater religious depth in Hebrew thought. Subsequent criticism which has shown the invalidity of much of the sociological and anthropological source material for these ideas had to be maintained but it was argued that H. Wheeler Robinson actually drew his major concepts from a study of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures themselves and used his comparative material from the ancient Near East mainly as illustration, rather than source, for his ideas. Much in these remains significant. Indeed, the paper concluded that in many ways H. Wheeler Robinson anticipated subsequent developments in the thought of Old Testament scholarship, especially those which were critical of the Biblical Theology movement, a movement which he would have rejected. Much of his work therefore remains and he must be counted a major scholar who influenced many other scholars, to a great extent directed the course of Old Testament studies after his time and offered an understanding of religious experience which still has force in these ‘post-modern’ days.

Dr Pauline Hodgetts, (Birmingham): ‘In Search of the Judges: Of historical craft and crafted history’:

For over a century there has been widespread agreement that the Book of Judges offers a showcase for viewing the historical craft of biblical writers. The text is widely perceived as a multi-layered text with an historical kernel of tribal tradition. Once this source material has been detected, it has often been used as the basis for reconstruction of a ‘judges period’. This view persists despite much current scepticism regarding ‘ancient Israel’, the illuminating work of literary critics, and the tendency towards a radically later dating of texts. It was argued in this paper that the evidence for early source material can be seriously challenged on archaeological and literary grounds. It was suggested that the interconnecting tapestry of the judge stories derived solely from the hand of one writer who produced a well-crafted work for the specific purpose of creating a crafted ‘period of the judges’. For a redactor to supply such interconnections, the level of redaction would be such that any pre-existing source material would practically have been entirely re-written. It thus becomes increasingly likely (and more simple) to say that the hand of the ‘redactor’ is actually the hand of the author. The paper concluded that the Book of Judges does not offer a showcase for the historian’s craft, but in fact may provide a crafted ‘history’ of a judges period.

Professor William Johnstone (Aberdeen): ‘I Chronicles 21: what did David do wrong?’ :

From Joab’s reply in I Chron. 21 three objections to the census might be inferred: it can not , it need not, and it ought not to be held. The latter objection may contain three theological principles: the LORD can save by few or by many; to know the number is to replace trust by knowledge; Israel is by divine promise uncountable. However, such objections are undercut by I Chron. 27, where a census is in fact held. The key term for resolving the paradox is b/t, as expounded in II Chron. 23:16-24:14 (cf. Exod. 30:11-16): when the people are mustered for military service, an indemnity must be laid up as a reminder before the LORD as a rite of prophylactic atonement (cf. II Chron. 25:5-10). The point of a census is not to check Israel’s military capability but to verify that Israel pays all that is due to God (cf. the figure of Che/a/onaniah in I Chron. 15:22; I Chron. 26:29 and II Chron. 31:12f.). By means of I Chron. 21, which describes David’s climactic failure in the realm of the holy, the Chronicler binds the reign of David, and the ensuing rule of the House of David, into his overall schema of guilt and atonement in his presentation of Israel’s life.

Revd Richard J. Coggins (Lymington): ‘Do we still need Deutero-Isaiah?’:

The term ‘Deutero-Isaiah’ is used in two senses: to describe a body of oracles, Isaiah 40-55; and to speak of an anonymous prophet, who allegedly lived among the Judahite exiles in Babylon in the 540s B.C.E. The paper argued that changes in historical understanding meant that neither of these usages continued to be appropriate. To describe a body of oracles as ‘Deutero-Isaiah’ implies that there is a ‘Proto’-Isaiah to which a new collection is added. But recent study of Isaiah 1-39 has shown how unlikely it is that there was a substantial collecion already complete to provide such a basis. Further, the redactional processes underlying Isaiah 40-55 are more complex than scholarship has traditionally allowed for; and the complex cross-currents within the book of Isaiah warn us against taking Isaiah 40-55 as a distinct unit. Historically, too, it seems unlikely that the situation allegedly producing an anonymous prophet ‘Deutero-Isaiah’ was as it has been portrayed. Would the Babylonians have allowed a substantial group of exiled Judahites to remain together, with one of their number preaching sedition against the government? Indeed the whole notion of a Babylonian background for these chapters is much less secure than has commonly been supposed. The references to Babylon and its gods are no more characteristic than are such references in Jeremiah 50-51, which are never supposed to have a Babylonian setting. The references to Cyrus in Isaiah 44-45 need not imply that he was a contemporary; rather he was an idealised figure, honoured as the one who had allowed the Jerusalem temple to be rebuilt. The usual ‘historical’ reconstruction of the sixth century owes more to ideology than has been recognised.

Dr Gerard J. Norton (Birmingham): ‘Biblia Hebraica Quinta: what, why, and for whom?’:

The lecturer presented the new edition of Biblia Hebraica currently being prepared by an international committee as a project of the United Bible Societies. The publishers (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart) intend it to replace the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and its incomplete project for publication of Masorah. Biblia Hebraica Quinta will be a one-volume edition of the text, with the Masorah Magna and Parva as found in the manuscript B19a of Leningrad with a critical apparatus. This will be accompanied by a one-volume commentary which will provide information and discussion beyond that contained in the apparatus of the text volume, as well as a translation of the Masorah where appropriate. Each fascicle will also be issued separately, bound with the relevant text-critical commentary. The first fascicle is due in 1998. While presenting a diplomatic edition of the Leningrad manuscript, the editors will not try to reconstruct an ‘original text’ in the apparatus but will present the available evidence (direct and indirect) for variant Hebrew texts. In this way it presents a change in editorial approach that results from reflection on the history of the transmission of the text. The speaker addressed particularly the edition of the Psalms, and showed with reference to Psalm 4:5-9 how the approach of Biblia Hebraica Quinta will differ from that of B.H.S. The stichography of the Psalter in the Leningrad manuscript, although it distinguishes the book from non-poetic texts, seems to have been devised by the scribe of that manuscript and to be related to the page divisions of the manuscript. The most obvious differences in the Psalter of the new edition when compared with that of B.H.S will lie in the stichography which will follow the accentuation of the Leningrad manuscript, and in the virtual elimination of the text changes proposed on metrical grounds, whether implicitly or explicitly.

Dr John Day (Oxford): ‘Yahweh and the Sun’:

It is clear that the sun was worshipped in ancient Israel. This is to be understood as Canaanite, not Assyrian, in derivation. First, all the non-astral deities removed by Josiah in II Kings 23 are clearly Canaanite (Baal, Asherah, Molech), so this is most naturally the case with the sun and other astral deities too. Secondly, a striking number of Palestinian theophoric place names allude to the sun, implying a Canaanite sun cult, e.g. several places called Beth-shemesh. Thirdly, a Taanach cult stand and a Hazor horse figurine with disk-like symbol, both dating from the 10th century B.C., attest the sun cult in Israel long before any possible Assyrian influence. A considerable number of scholars in recent years (e.g. H. -P. Stähli, H. Niehr, O. Keel, C. Uehlinger, E. Lipinski and J. G. Taylor) have revived the older view that Yahweh was equated with the sun, and Mark Smith similarly sees a strong solar influence on Yahwistic imagery. Among the arguments sometimes employed are: (1) The East-West orientation of Solomon’s temple; but not only solar temples had this orientation. (2) I Kings 8:12 (cf. LXX 8:53) has been held to imply the equation of Yahweh and the sun, but it is probable that they are rather contrasted. (3) II Kings 23:5, 11 and Ezek. 8:16 attest sun worship in Yahweh’s temple. However, this in no way demands Yahweh’s equation with the sun any more than with any of the other deities alluded to in II Kings 23 or Ezek. 8. Rather, the sun was probably seen as part of the host of heaven and therefore as subordinate to Yahweh. (4) Psalm 84:12 (E.T. 11), ‘Yahweh is a sun (dvd)) and shield’, had been appealed to. But better parallelism is obtained if we render dvd as ‘battlement’ or the like, as in Isaiah 54:12. (5) It is claimed that the use of the verbs gxf and [th (hiphil) ‘shine’ in connection with Yahweh implies a solar understanding. The hip-hil of [th is used in Deut. 33:2 and Psalm 50:2, but the allusions are more naturally to the lightning in view of the clear Sinai theophany contexts (cf. Exod. 19:16; Psalm 50:3, etc.). The use of gxf in Isaiah presupposes that Yahweh will replace the sun. J. G. Taylor, in particular, has brought many other arguments to support the equation of Yahweh and the sun, but they are all weak. Noteworthy is the fact that no theophoric personal names such as Yehoshemesh or Shemeshiah are ever attested. In the final part of the lecture the background of Psalms 19 and 104 in sun hymns was discussed (the latter being influenced by Akhenaten’s famous Aton hymn) and the solar connections of Samson and Enoch were analysed.

Professor R. Norman Whybray (Ely): ‘Psalm 119 – Profile of a Psalmist’:

This paper on Psalm 119 was a study of the spirituality of the psalmist together with some remarks on the psalm’s structure. Although the psalmist represented himself as a lone voice, and frequently referred to ‘enemies’ who persecuted him and sought his life, he also spoke of others who ‘sought the Lord with their whole heart’; that is, although the psalm is a prayer addressed wholly to God, he regarded himself as the leader or spokesman of a group of devout individuals whose piety it was his purpose to encourage. The psalm thus appears to reflect a situation in which, as in some other O.T. texts such as parts of Isaiah 56-66, there were two opposing religious parties in the nation each of which claimed to represent the true faith and each denounced the other as wicked and apostate. The psalmist’s own faith was grounded in the torah, which for him was the consequence of a personal dialogue with God through prayer. The psalm possesses a greater sequence of thought than is often recognized; and some sections are well integrated formally, though the psalmist has now entirely succeeded in his ambitious employment of an unusually demanding form.